The shareware folks figured out there was no need for a box (or anything
physical, really) back in the 1990's or so. One of them wrote a little
program that produced a 3D image of what looked like a box. So for
years a lot of websites had pictures of a pretend box that the customer
never
Peter Farley wrote:
>Can you point to a page or document that describes the IBM policy
>for HACP version upgrades? I am concerned that if I buy a copy but
>receive an earlier-than-current version (e.g., V13.0 vs the more current
>V14.0) from a non-IBM distributor that I would not be entitled to
Just stumbled upon this thread and can't resist a comment or two.
In 1971 I went from "correspondence" training to 3 months "intensive training"
at the College of Automation in Jacksonville FL... Yep, Now I know that was a
pure scam, but I did learn how to wire accounting machines, code in RPG
The IBM announcement letter for HACP states " access to updates, releases,
and versions of the program as long as support is in effect." ... so you
just have to keep paying your annual maintenance. Good question how that
applies to buying a back-level version (and that would come with support in
Just from the online pictures, the IBM 403 control board was definitely
smaller (looks like maybe 66 vs. 80 columns of holes and about 33 rows)
and was subdivided into 3 columns vs the 4 quadrants for the 407. The
printing on the front side of the board to identify and label the holes
on the
RPG was designed for the same application niche as the tabulators, but it
didn't deal with emitters, hubs and individual columns. Everything was in terms
of fields. The same is true for FARGO.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
Does anybody know the dates for
FARGO (1401)
RPG (1401)
RPG (7070)
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
John Abell [john.ab...@intnlsoftwareproducts.com]
I am not totally sure BUT I believe that it was the revamp of the 1401 FARGO
programming language. IBM taught us FARGO and AUTOCODER as 1401 operators
in the early 1960s so we could fix programs sent in for compiles when we
were on the evening and midnight shifts.
John T. Abell
Tel:
COOL
On Monday, May 30, 2022, 06:57:59 AM EDT, Seymour J Metz
wrote:
I would expect to see finite difference calculations in the 1960s on a 60x or
610 rather than a 407, although the Manhattan Project did do calculations on a
room full of tabulators.
Displaying operational registers
It is NEVER a good idea to NOT re-assemble the exits. Especially when you are
upgrading. In this particular case, you will find that if you don't
re-assemble them, you will get an error when you start up VPS and it will stop.
Brian
If I remember correctly, RPG was originally based on the function of the
electro-mechanical accounting machines.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 1:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re:
Thanks Timothy. My "favorite search engine" actually only found one
distributor who actually publishes pricing for that part number, but there was
at least one. The rest all required one to submit an RPQ to reveal pricing.
Can you point to a page or document that describes the IBM policy for
Could the PDS be statically included in LNKLSTxx rather than dynamically added?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Francois desmadrille
I'd say that spec looks more like RPG than like a 407; you only identify the
beginning and end of a field and don't need to specify every column
individually.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:52:24 +0300, Itschak Mugzach wrote:
>...
>(ignore the logix, ... )
>
Easily enough done since you supplied none.
You'd get more directed advice if you supplied a code excerpt
or pseudocode.
--
gil
--
Run your silly Rexx under UNIX. Ir's simpler.
On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:52:24 +0300, Itschak Mugzach wrote:
>
>A rexx exec is processing a file system. First call to bpxbatch perform ls
>looping on the directories listed in the root to look for specific files
>
Thanks, Timothy. That was the information I, too, was looking for.
DJ
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
A bit off topic here, but the IBM 407 lives on as the "spec" stage in the CMS
Pipelines utility. From the reference document:
"Rest assured that no hardware knowledge is required to use spec effectively.
But you will
have a head start if you have past experience with the IBM 407 Accounting
I confirme that the files are NOT in the LINKLST (neither the original files
nor the copies) and that the orignal files are NOT cataloged.
Only the copies was cataloged and SMS-managed.
To unlock a file that have an XCFAS and / or an LLA ENQ, i usually use this
method :
- LNKLST DEFINE NAME(new
Itschak,
Looks like you want _BPX_SHAREAS=YES.
But note:
"If the extended attribute for the shared address space is not set, the
program will not run in a shared address space, regardless of the setting
of _BPX_SHAREAS. The attribute is set by extattr +s and reset by extattr -s.
If the
Kirk,
A rexx exec is processing a file system. First call to bpxbatch perform ls
looping on the directories listed in the root to look for specific files
(ignore the logix, it was dictated by a uniprocessor and a mixture of
software).
I noticed that every call to unix creates (or starts) a shadow
I would need more information:
- By "the command" do you mean a z/OS Unix shell command?
- Why exactly do you want BPXBATCH?
- Do you want another STC for each "command", or is that what you don't want?
- Do you need the z/OS Unix shell itself, or is it OK to run the command
without a shell?
On Mon, 30 May 2022 10:33:23 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>
>As a side note, Richard Feynman described using a room for of EAM equipment to
>do calculation for the Manhattan Project.
>
Imagine debugging.
Code Reviews.
Comments on sticky notes.
--
gil
I would expect to see finite difference calculations in the 1960s on a 60x or
610 rather than a 407, although the Manhattan Project did do calculations on a
room full of tabulators.
Displaying operational registers using, e.g., Nixie tube, was quite common for
decades. I know of machines that
On 2022-05-30 20:33, Seymour J Metz wrote:
I've only seen a 407; did the boards for the other 40x machines have
the same form factor?
You could open the door an wire the board without removing it; I can't
imagine wanting to do so.
When a minor change was required to the wiring,
the could be
Yikes! I thought I read that they were still using a 402 in 2010! Obviously I'm
hallucinating!
How much did it cost them to keep it running?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
I've only seen a 407; did the boards for the other 40x machines have the same
form factor?
You could open the door an wire the board without removing it; I can't imagine
wanting to do so.
While 80-80 listing was certainly a standard board at every shop I heard of,
AFAIK the most common task
As you’ve already figured out, you license IBM Personal Communications via the
IBM Host Access Client Package (“HACP”). This license includes Personal
Communications (for Windows) and Host On-Demand for all supported platforms
(Linux, macOS, Windows, etc.) One license entitlement = one
28 matches
Mail list logo
